Anyway, what's the supposed advantage of *(volatile *) vs. using
a real volatile object? That you can access that same object in
a non-volatile way?
That's my understanding. That way accesses where you don't care about
volatility may be optimised.
But those accesses might be done non-atomically then (for example,
if the compiler knows it only needs to write one byte, it might not
bother writing the rest), so that's no good if you want to read the
thing atomically too.
For instance, in cases where there are already other things
controlling visibility (as are needed for atomic increment, for
example) you don't need to make the access itself volatile.
Hrm, you mean within a lock or similar? You'll get the same semantics
as volatile anyway there.
Segher
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
